Memeorandum

September 19, 2004

Nick Kristof - Not Too Swift

Let's give Nick Kristof credit for trying. He flacked for the "Texans for Truth" for their first ad without making any attempt to research the star of their new commercial. He gave space to a college prof who has been bashing Bush for years. But in an attempt to be "fair and balanced" he has now decided to present an even handed assessment of the claims made by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

We scored a (very weak) correction with his column about Bob Mintz of the "Texans for Truth"; we have high hopes of scoring two more with this one. Let's do the corrections first:

Did Mr. Kerry deserve his Bronze Star? Yes. The Swift Boat Veterans claim that he was not facing enemy fire when he rescued a Green Beret, Jim Rassmann, but that is contradicted by those were there, like William Rood and Mr. Rassmann (a Republican). In fact, Mr. Rassmann recommended Mr. Kerry for a Silver Star.

Mr. Rood was a Swift Boat skipper who presented his viewpoint on Kerry's Silver Star incident. In fact, he said this:

I was part of the operation that led to Kerry's Silver Star. I have no firsthand knowledge of the events that resulted in his winning the Purple Hearts or the Bronze Star.

What do those who served with him say? Some who served on other boats have called Mr. Kerry a hypochondriac self-promoter. But every enlisted man who was with Mr. Kerry on various boats when he won Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars says he deserved them. All praise his courage and back his candidacy.

What about Steve Gardner, who served with Kerry on PCF-44, and now appears in some Swift Boat ads?

Now, we should acknowldege that Kristof may have deliberately crafted his staement in a way that is misleading, but accurate, by including the qualification about "various boats when he won Purple Hearts and Silver and Bronze Stars." The typical reader may simply read that as a highlighting of Kerry's laudable record, mentally rewriting the sentence to become, "every enlisted man who was with Kerry while he was serving heroically...". However, because Kerry never won a medal while on PCF-44, maybe Gardner has been disqualified on an odd technicality. Since the other men of PCF-44 appeared at the Democratic Convention, however, I think Kristof is being a lawyer rather than a journalist if he thinks his column is accurate on this point. I am also surprised, frankly, by the on-again, off-again research skills that could have him presenting this crafty phrase about Gardner while misplacing Rood.

My very general comment - if the liberal media had taken these Swiftees seriously from the outset, and seriously investigated their claims, the debunkings would have been more credible.

And here is the question Kristof does not ask (although Don Imus did!) - has John Kerry fulfilled his promise to release all of his military records, and why won'the sign the Form 180 that would authorize reporters to verify his claims? How long does Kristof think that Times readers can be sheltered from the truth?

They want your feedback!

Nick Kristof : nicholas@nytimes.com

DanielOkrent : public@nytimes.com

UPDATE: I need to read more blogs - punishment by Patterico, bashing by Beldar, criticism from the Captain, glee from Glenn... OK, I'm stopping.

ANOTEHR UPDATE: Props to the Captain for a NY Post piece on Kerry's Vietnam puzzles.

I have been astonished at the factually challenged world the writers at the New York Times seem to live in - every time I see Maureen Dowd, or Paul Krugman, or any other New York Times person being interviewed, they always seems to mouth as gospel at least one factual inaccuracy. The seem to believe their self generated "facts". (example: "It has been proven that Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda") Anyone who had looked at the William Rood article should have been clear that he was talking about a different event. The old media seems to have been taken over by people who value writing skills more highly than accuracy.

Penraker, I can't be as generous as you re valuing writing skills more highly than accuracy. Have you read Maureen Dowd lately? Oh. Wait a minute. Given MoDo's writing skills, the value of accuracy must be lower than the bottom of the ocean. Sorry. That nuance stuff confuses me.

"... if the liberal media had taken these Swiftees seriously from the outset ..." the presidential compaign might have been a serious one between two credible candidates,
rather than the farce it has become.

Kristof states that Rassmann is a Republican. But Rassmann has said "I turned Democrat in January." But, uhh, he then wrote a couple of days later "I am a Republican." Maybe Kristof flipped a coin and decided to use the Republican affiliation for Rassmann?

I think this raises questions about Rassmann's credibility and about Kristof's journalistic competence.

"and why won'the sign the Form 180 that would authorize reporters to verify his claims?"

I think it would be wise for Bush to have a Form 180 in his pocket at the first debate. The second Kerry brings up either Vietnam or the National Guard Bush, in his rebuttal, should show a copy of his signed Form 180 that allows all his records to be released. Then he tells Kerry he has a blank one and challenge Kerry to sign it after the debate. You probably don't want him to take it over to Kerry or people might see Kerry as a frightened little girl like they did with Hillary. After that the press could not ignore the fact that Kerry has not signed 180 and not released all of his records.

I don't know how many times to say it, but the only James Rassman from Oregon is not a registered Republican. According to the public record voting logs, James Rassman is and has been a registered Democrat.

While we're throwing logs on the fire, how about Kerry putting a documented phony--David Alson, who claimed to be onboard PCF-94 when the Silver Star incident took place but was in fact in a hospital bed--on center stage at the Democratic National Convention?

Kerry's narrative is somewhere between creative nonfiction and a tissue of lies.

The media did take the Swifties seriously and tried to bury them by ignoring them. The funny thing is that what they have been saying has been known by veterans for some time. One need only contrast the retractions mde by the Swifties and by the Kerry campaign to see who is more accurate. Perhaps there is something I am missing about the Swifties. Maybe you can explain it to the veterans who haven't bought either your line or Mr. Kerry's?

To clarify a previous post: Each political party has the primary responsibility to "vet" its candidates. But the media also assumes this role. In the case of John Kerry, the DNC and MSM have failed badly, and in so doing has damaged our democratic process.